| === charles__ is now known as charles | ||
| === Ursinha-afk is now known as Ursinha | ||
| === Ursinha is now known as Ursinha-afk | ||
| === Ursinha-afk is now known as Ursinha | ||
| Saviq | mooore spammers: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/unity8/+bug/1324071 | 12:12 |
|---|---|---|
| ubot5 | Ubuntu bug 1324071 in unity8 (Ubuntu) "Acne And The Importance Of Skin Care" [Undecided,Invalid] | 12:12 |
| cjwatson | Saviq: dealing | 12:13 |
| Saviq | cjwatson, thanks | 12:13 |
| cjwatson | done | 12:13 |
| ki7mt | Is this the right channel to discuss PPA's on Launchpad and such? | 14:25 |
| davmor2 | ki7mt: ask your question. Most of the devs are in the Australian/New Zealand timezone so you might not get a response immediately | 14:27 |
| cjwatson | Well, not this week they aren't | 14:27 |
| davmor2 | cjwatson: oh | 14:27 |
| davmor2 | cjwatson: buy them beer then they deserve it :) | 14:28 |
| wgrant | Yeah, we're all in Malta this week. | 14:31 |
| ki7mt | davmor2, Ok, understand, I'm working on several applications, though related, separate repo branches. Is the best practice to create one PPA for each application or set up a team PPA or something? | 14:31 |
| dobey | it's up to you how to deal with it. but best practice is to do the thing that best suits how you want your users to get our apps from a PPA | 14:35 |
| dobey | doesn't need to be a team PPA unless you need multiple people to upload to it | 14:35 |
| dobey | you can have one PPA and just upload the source packages for all the apps to the one ppa? | 14:36 |
| cjwatson | it's certainly entirely reasonable to put multiple packages in one PPA, if they'll be used by roughly the same set of people | 14:36 |
| cjwatson | you'd use multiple PPAs when they have radically different audiences, require different access control for uploads, and/or have conflicting packages in the different archives | 14:36 |
| ki7mt | Ok, they are all very close is use, just different parts of the radio spectrum. Sounds like one PPA, then add the packages to that is a reasonable approach. | 14:39 |
| wgrant | Yep | 14:41 |
| wgrant | If they're new packages, rather than changes to packages in Ubuntu, users can add your PPA and then just choose which packages to install. | 14:41 |
| ki7mt | Thanks for the info. I'm sure I'll be back with more questions when things fall over :-) | 14:42 |
| ki7mt | Yes, I'm new to packaging for Debian/Ubuntu .. I have the first package building on sid 32/64 and trust 32/64 with pbuilder, lintian is ok also. | 14:44 |
| ki7mt | trusty 32/64 .. .. | 14:44 |
| ki7mt | And yes, 3 of the apps are not in Debian or Ubuntu, then two others are but they need to be brought up to date for py3 and numpy 1.8 etc etc., | 14:47 |
| tgm4883 | dobey: so... 12.10 was marked as supported again? https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/quantal | 15:41 |
| cjwatson | see #ubuntu-release | 15:56 |
| === Ursinha is now known as Ursinha-afk | ||
| ki7mt | Hello all, I have a package, not currently in Debian/Ubuntu, that I've create the PPA page, tested builds etc, and I'm ready to dput, but I'm a bit confused on the version / naming conversion. Program name is WSPR, version is 4.0. How should I name this for uploading to LP | 18:37 |
| TheWaterOnFire | Is there any reason I should get a "Missing build dependency" for a package that is part of the PPA I am building in? | 18:56 |
| TheWaterOnFire | i.e., building umockdev, need valac (>= 0.16.1); so added vala 0.16.1 to the PPA, but umockdev still won't build. | 18:57 |
| maxb | Check the package actually got published before you started the build? | 18:59 |
| TheWaterOnFire | It did. And I also restarted the build once afterward, just to be sure. | 18:59 |
| maxb | It could be a component issue, if "Use the same components used for each source in the Ubuntu primary archive." is the selected option for that PPA | 19:00 |
| TheWaterOnFire | It's set to "Use all Ubuntu components available" | 19:01 |
| maxb | You'd better give a link to the PPA and build, then | 19:05 |
| TheWaterOnFire | https://launchpad.net/~dwink/+archive/gstreamer/+build/6048534 | 19:06 |
| maxb | TheWaterOnFire: I see no package called 'valac' in that PPA | 19:10 |
| maxb | I see one called 'valac-0.16', but that's hardly the same thing | 19:11 |
| TheWaterOnFire | maxb: Aha. That makes some sense. The vala packaging is strange that way. Thanks! | 19:13 |
| === Ursinha-afk is now known as Ursinha | ||
| === Ursinha is now known as Ursinha-afk | ||
| cjwatson | ki7mt: I would probably use 4.0-0ppa1 or something like that, in order that any future upload to Ubuntu will supersede it | 21:53 |
| cjwatson | ki7mt: and convert the program name to lower case | 21:53 |
| ki7mt | cjwatson, Thanks, the .org is all lower case, iv'e got the front half sorted out .. wspr-4..0~r4155 .. now I just need to figure out the 0ubuntu1 part, it's not clear on the site how that is assigned I guess it's done with the dput command. | 22:02 |
| ki7mt | whoops wspr-4.0~r4155 .. .. | 22:03 |
| cjwatson | ki7mt: you don't need that if it isn't in Ubuntu | 22:07 |
| cjwatson | And dput does not change version numbers | 22:07 |
| ki7mt | Oh, ok, thanks. so i can simply put: wspr-4.0~r4155_source.changes and away it goes? | 22:08 |
| cjwatson | don't need that> that is, "-0ubuntu1" indicates specifically a version of a package modified in Ubuntu - something like -0ppa1 would be better probably | 22:08 |
| cjwatson | You put the version number in the top line of debian/changelog | 22:08 |
| ki7mt | Yes, thats there already | 22:09 |
| cjwatson | If the package has a separate upstream existence (that is, there's already a wspr tarball released, or similar) then it should probably be 4.0~r4155-0ppa1 or something like that | 22:09 |
| ki7mt | wspr (4.0~r4155) UNRELEASED; urgency=lo | 22:09 |
| ki7mt | low | 22:09 |
| cjwatson | 4.0~r4155 with no -<something> indicates that the package in question *only* exists as a package - this is usually only appropriate if you're working on something quite core to the distribution itself, so for example dpkg doesn't have a -<revision> part | 22:10 |
| ki7mt | Ok, so I need to change the tarball name and changelog to add-<somthing> as well. | 22:11 |
| cjwatson | no | 22:11 |
| cjwatson | just the changelog | 22:11 |
| cjwatson | So I would usually do "wspr (4.0~r4155-0ppa1) UNRELEASED; urgency=low" (and of course set "UNRELEASED" to the actual target release (using dch -r) before actually uploading) | 22:11 |
| cjwatson | if I made a change to the packaging that would become 4.0~r4155-0ppa2 | 22:12 |
| cjwatson | if I took a new upstream snapshot that would become 4.0~r4156-0ppa1 (or whatever) | 22:12 |
| cjwatson | if upstream made a proper release then that would become 4.0-0ppa1 | 22:12 |
| cjwatson | something like that | 22:12 |
| cjwatson | as I say, assuming that WSPR is a thing that has an upstream maintainer | 22:13 |
| ki7mt | That what this is, a snapshot, as we're in the process of getting tar's generated on releases, jsut not there yet. | 22:13 |
| cjwatson | sure, I get that | 22:13 |
| ki7mt | Im part of that upstream helper croud :-) | 22:13 |
| cjwatson | if it exists in some manner other than a package, though, which it sounds like it does, you should have a -<revision>, e.g. 4.0~r4155-0ppa1 | 22:14 |
| cjwatson | even if you are part of the upstream maintenance crew | 22:14 |
| cjwatson | otherwise there will sooner or later be some confusion between the version numbers you release in your packages and the upstream versions | 22:14 |
| ki7mt | It does, but it's in Windows, a few of us are converting things to *Nix thus the 4.0, that's the actual release version. | 22:14 |
| cjwatson | sure, I don't need to know :) | 22:15 |
| cjwatson | anyway, running out of battery and need sleep, night | 22:15 |
| ki7mt | Ok, thanks. | 22:15 |
| === Guest30318 is now known as nesthib | ||
| santa | hello | 22:42 |
| santa | I have started recently trying to get some changes in the kubuntu kde framworks 5 packaging, so I made some personal bzr branches with my changes | 22:43 |
| santa | however, I don't see the "merge request" button in the web interface, why is that? | 22:43 |
| santa | for instance http://derp.co.uk/73999 | 22:47 |
| dobey | santa: +junk branches are not part of a project or distribution. you need to push your branch to a location under a project or distribution, to propose it. | 23:30 |
| santa | dobey: thanks. well the idea would be able to merge them here https://code.launchpad.net/kubuntu-packaging how do you suggest me to proceed? the person willing to review my changes told me it would be better - and I agree - if I could use the "merge request" thing (in order to avoid poking on irc) | 23:39 |
| dobey | push them to lp:~yourusername/kubuntu-packaging/whatever-you-want-to-name-the-branch | 23:46 |
| dobey | like lp:~foo/kubuntu-packaging/fix-readme or whatever | 23:46 |
| santa | ok, I'm not sure if I will have permissions to do that. I guess I don't so I will discuss it with the kubuntu guys tomorrow | 23:49 |
| santa | thank you for the help | 23:49 |
| dobey | yes you do | 23:49 |
| dobey | anyone can push any branch under a project like that | 23:49 |
| santa | oh | 23:49 |
| santa | let me check | 23:50 |
| dobey | the part that deterines the owner of the branch is your username | 23:50 |
| dobey | anyway, i have to go | 23:50 |
| santa | ah, ok | 23:50 |
| santa | see you | 23:50 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!